National Ben Franklin Ins. Co. of Michigan v. Harris, Docket No. 87742
| Decision Date | 19 August 1987 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 87742 |
| Parties | NATIONAL BEN FRANKLIN INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Donnell HARRIS, Defendant, and Village of Cassopolis; Village Council of the Village of Cassopolis, and their agents, successors, employees, servants and all other persons acting in concert with them; Garrett Snyder, Public Works Department Supervisor, both as Supervisor and individually; Frederick Senger, former Village President, both as former President and individually; Sylvia Bosler, Village Clerk, both as Village Clerk and individually; and Robert Thompson, both as Village President and individually, Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Wilbur Weaver d/b/a Pete Weaver Insurance and/or Weaver's Insurance Agency, and Dan Weaver, jointly and severally, Third-Party Defendants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Bremer, Wade, Nelson & Alt by Michael D. Wade, Phillip J. Nelson, and James H. Lohr, Grand Rapids, for plaintiff-appellee.
French & Lawrence by Daniel H. French, Cassopolis, for defendant.
Before WALSH, P.J., and J.H. GILLIS and GLASER, JJ.
Defendants appeal as of right the trial court's order granting plaintiff's motion for summary disposition. MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm.
Plaintiff filed this declaratory judgment action in order to determine whether it had a duty to provide coverage to or to defend defendants-insureds under the terms of its insurance policy. In September, 1983, Larry Donnell Harris filed a complaint in federal district court against the Village of Cassopolis and others claiming that those defendants had discriminated against him because of his race and mental handicap in terminating his employment with the village. Upon being sued by Harris, the defendants asked plaintiff in this action to defend them and to provide coverage if they were found to be liable to Harris. After reviewing Harris's complaint, plaintiff informed the defendants that they were not covered for the allegations set forth by Harris. Thereafter, plaintiff filed this declaratory judgment action, requesting the court to find that the defendants were not covered under the terms of the policy. Later, plaintiff moved for summary disposition and the trial court granted its motion. Defendants moved for rehearing, but their motion was denied. They now appeal to this Court.
The parties do not dispute that the following policy language is dispositive:
to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence, and the company shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on account of such bodily injury or property damage.
Defendants claim that Harris alleged bodily injury in his complaint. In Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. of Michigan v. Hoag, 136 Mich.App. 326, 332, 335, 356 N.W.2d 630 (1984), lv. den. 422 Mich. 920 (1985), this Court held that the phrase "bodily injury" is unambiguous and does not include humiliation and mental anguish and mental suffering. As a minimum, this Court held, it would require physical manifestation of mental suffering to satisfy the bodily injury requirement. Id.
In this case, Harris repeatedly asserted that he suffered humiliation, mental anguish and mental and physical distress; however, he did not allege any physical manifestations of his mental injuries. Moreover, the only physical injury described by Harris was one for which he received workers' compensation. As noted in the exclusion provision quoted above, plaintiff is not liable for such injuries. Hence, we conclude that the trial court correctly granted plaintiff's motion for summary disposition because Harris did not allege a bodily injury within the terms of the parties' insurance policy.
Even if we were to accept defendants' contention that Harris suffered a bodily injury, we would still conclude that defendants were not entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lapeka, Inc. v. Security Nat. Ins. Co., Inc.
...death in car collision are not "bodily injuries" within the meaning of the insurance policy); National Ben Franklin Ins. Co. of Mich. v. Harris, 161 Mich.App. 86, 409 N.W.2d 733, 735 (1987) (phrase "bodily injury" is unambiguous and does not include humiliation and mental anguish and mental......
-
Hunter v. Sisco
...See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Basham, 206 Mich.App. 240, 243, 520 N.W.2d 713 (1994), citing Nat'l Ben Franklin Ins. Co. of Mich. v. Harris, 161 Mich.App. 86, 90, 409 N.W.2d 733 (1987), and Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Mich. v. Hoag, 136 Mich.App. 326, 332, 335, 356 N.W.2d 630 (1984). In......
-
David v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...can make the words "bodily injury to an employee of the insured" mean Miro's conduct. See, e.g., Natl. Ben Franklin Ins. Co. v. Harris (1987), 161 Mich.App. 86, 409 N.W.2d 733. When read as written, the exclusion unambiguously states that the insurance does not apply to Comello's emotional ......
-
Fahad S. David, A/k/a Fahad S. Daoud, and Daoud Investments, Inc., and Gold Star Chili, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co.
... ... 1314. Their view follows the national ... judicial trend conclusively excluding ... See, e.g., National Ben ... Franklin Ins. Co. v. Harris (1987), 161 Mich.App. 86, ... ...
-
Insurance coverage issues arising from workplace tort claims.
...Loyola Marymount Univ. v. Hartford Accident and Indem. Co., 271 Cal.Rptr. 528 (Cal.App. 1990). (31.)826 F.Supp. 123 (N.D. Pa. 1993). (32.)409 N.W.2d 733 (Mich. (33.)School Dist. for City of Royal Oak v. Continental Casualty Co., 912 F.2d 844 (6th Cir. 1990). (34.)Vista Medical, 699 F.Supp. ......